Louise spent 22 months in custody after she was charged with the 2nd degree murder in 1997 for the murder of her 7 year old daughter Sharon.

Dr. Smith did the autopsy and said an instrument like a knife or scissors was used to kill the little girl. He said it was the source of more than 80 stab wounds on the little girls body. But in 2001 a second autopsy was done and it found the injuries were not stab wounds but infact dog bites.

They had a pit bull locked in the basement where the body was found.

The courts dismissed her claim against Smith stating that he is immune from the witness immunity rule. The rule protects him from liability at all stages of his involvement in the case, including his autopsy findings.

But her lawyers are claiming, "Those damages began to flow the moment she was arrested and continued until she was released from custody. They didn't start to flow when Dr. Smith took the witness stand."

Because of the charges placed upon Reynolds from the first autopsy findings, she lost custody of her other daughter while in custody.

She is also suing the Kingston Police department even if she cannot sue Smith.

Smith's 44 other case findings of alleged homicide and suspicious death are now being questioned and reviewed bythe Ontario chief coroner.

I cannot believe this pathologist could not tell the difference between bite marks and stab wounds.

I think he should be held liable in this case. This mother went through hell, first losing her daughter and then being charged and losing her other daughter.

My only question is what was the child doing in the basement with a confined dog? But age 7, she could have went down the basement while the mother was making beds, who knows?